oss_report_coverage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at a gate/verdict semantic (complete must be true) but never says whether the call is a read-only computation, whether it mutates analysis state, what happens when complete=false, or what the report contains. The single clause about 'complete' is a behavioral hint, not disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler and no repetition — but the brevity here is under-specification rather than discipline. The gating point is front-loaded, which is correct.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of truth about a report tool that seems to gate task completion. It should describe what the two axes count, what the gates check, and what a caller should do when complete=false; none of that is present.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about project_id or its expected form. With a single self-evident identifier the cost is small, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap at all, and it certainly adds nothing beyond the schema's bare title.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

It names the resource — coverage measured on two axes (file and symbol) plus completion gates — so a reader gets the gist. But there is no verb (report? summarize? compute?) and no differentiation from the many sibling reporting tools (oss_report_features, oss_report_export), all of which likely cover similar ground.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage-like cue is the gating note that complete=true is needed for 'full analysis complete', which implies the tool is consulted before declaring a task done. There is no statement of when to call it versus oss_unit_complete, oss_unknowns_list, or oss_report_features, and no exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.